There’s so much nonsense in this I really struggle to begin.
“We discovered that the children who got a lot of PE time at school were compensating by doing less at home, while those who got very little PE time compensated by cranking up their activity at home, so that over the week, they all accumulated the same amount,” the statisician said.
Yes Ms Frémeaux, but all you are doing is counting the amount of exercise kids get in a week. You say nothing about the quality or content of that exercise. Every athlete knows that the quality and specificity of exercise is more relevant to physical conditioning than amount. A top class sprinter could spent 30 hours a week jogging, but he would gain nothing from doing so, and would in fact get slower. With 12 hours of well designed sprint and power training he’ll do well. In fact, 20 minutes a day of the right training would probably get him to about 90% of his potential; all the rest of the training is to squeeze out the last bits of potential. Likewise, a marathon runner won’t gain much from spending all day in the weights room. I get about an hour and a half of exercise each day at the gym or the rugby club and spend the rest of the day sitting on my arse in an office or eating. You are welcome to compare my physical fitness to people who spend 8 hours a day walking around the place.
Children who spend a hour or so each day doing sprint-interval activity like ball games, tag or cycling up and down hills WILL be fitter than those who spend two hours a day walking, because their activity stresses the body in such a way as to lead to a training response, i.e. hypercompensation.
I'm not about to write a dissertation about exercise physiology to explain why this report is bollocks, but parents; just make sure your kids run about outside or ride their bikes for an hour or so each day and they'll be fine; please ignore these silly statistics.
“We discovered that the children who got a lot of PE time at school were compensating by doing less at home, while those who got very little PE time compensated by cranking up their activity at home, so that over the week, they all accumulated the same amount,” the statisician said.
Yes Ms Frémeaux, but all you are doing is counting the amount of exercise kids get in a week. You say nothing about the quality or content of that exercise. Every athlete knows that the quality and specificity of exercise is more relevant to physical conditioning than amount. A top class sprinter could spent 30 hours a week jogging, but he would gain nothing from doing so, and would in fact get slower. With 12 hours of well designed sprint and power training he’ll do well. In fact, 20 minutes a day of the right training would probably get him to about 90% of his potential; all the rest of the training is to squeeze out the last bits of potential. Likewise, a marathon runner won’t gain much from spending all day in the weights room. I get about an hour and a half of exercise each day at the gym or the rugby club and spend the rest of the day sitting on my arse in an office or eating. You are welcome to compare my physical fitness to people who spend 8 hours a day walking around the place.
Children who spend a hour or so each day doing sprint-interval activity like ball games, tag or cycling up and down hills WILL be fitter than those who spend two hours a day walking, because their activity stresses the body in such a way as to lead to a training response, i.e. hypercompensation.
I'm not about to write a dissertation about exercise physiology to explain why this report is bollocks, but parents; just make sure your kids run about outside or ride their bikes for an hour or so each day and they'll be fine; please ignore these silly statistics.
that's not statistics - that's observation FFS 
<- For Ms Fremeaux
Swiss kids have compulsory PE right through up to the point they join the workforce/go to university. That includes a fair few 19/20 year olds.
It includes a few fair 19/20 year olds...
Comment